Why Yair Lapid is threatening Israel's economy

Finance Minister Yair Lapid threatened this week that Israel's economy would collapse if there is no 'two-state solution.' Caroline Glick argues that exactly the opposite is true, and Lapid is saying what he says because there is nothing else to say in support of the 'peace process.'

For 17 years, the Left has been relying on a falsified 1997
Palestinian census that exaggerated the Palestinian population by 50
percent, as a means of scaring Israelis into going along with its phony
peace process.

Still today, Kerry, Livni, Lapid and their fellow travelers seek to
intimidate us by constantly telling us that continued Israeli control
over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem will bring about Israel’s demographic
demise.

But the lie at the heart of their argument is no longer possible to ignore.

As demographic expert Yoram Ettinger wrote last week in Yisrael Hayom,
Jewish Israeli fertility rates are higher than Palestinian fertility
rates in Judea and Samaria. In 2013, the Palestinian fertility rate was
2.91 children per woman and the Israeli Jewish fertility rate was 3.04
children per woman.

Today Jews make up 62-66 percent of the population in Judea, Samaria and
sovereign Israel. With a two to one majority, a higher birthrate, and
positive immigration rates, far from being a strategic threat to
Israel’s national viability, demographics are one of Israel’s strategic
assets.

The only threat to Israel’s demographic stability is the two-state
formula. A Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem would
permit the unlimited immigration of millions of foreign Arabs into its
territory. Rather than securing Israel’s Jewish majority, a Palestinian
state would place millions of hostile Arabs on the outskirts of a rump
Israel’s major cities.

With their threat of demographic ruin losing its traction with the
public, purveyors of the two-state plan now raise the threat of economic
strangulation and ruin at every opportunity.

They understand that given the public’s refusal to be drawn into
their fantasies about “peace dividends,” the only path before them is a
mix of intimidation and political subversion. They hope that together
these two tactics can force Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to submit
to Kerry’s dictates for Israeli territorial surrenders.

"Jews,
France is not yours!" "Jews out of France" and "The story of the gas
chambers is bull***!" were all among what protesters yelled as they
chanted in unison. At one point they simply yelled "Jew, Jew, Jew."

Many of the protesters also demonstrate the infamous quenelle symbol, which continues to make headlines since it was popularized by anti-Semitic comedian Dieudonne M'Bala M'Bala.

Jewish Home gets positive bounce from Bennett's non-apology

A new poll indicates that the Jewish Home party got a positive bounce from party leader Naftali Bennett's non-apology to Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is from the first link.

Bayit Yehudi sources continued to insist that Economy Minister Naftali
Bennett did not apologize to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu following
the latter’s ultimatum, as the party got a five-seat boost in polls on
Thursday.

“The ultimatum [apologize or be fired from the cabinet] did not influence Bennett. He just didn’t want to insult Netanyahu.

His goal was not to disrespect the prime minister, and he fixed things
responsibly,” Bayit Yehudi faction chairwoman Ayelet Shaked said.

...

Meanwhile, a Knesset Channel- Panels poll – conducted in part before and
in part after Bennett said he did not mean to offend Netanyahu – showed
Bayit Yehudi jumping from 12 to 17 Knesset seats (out of 120) if an
election were held now.

Likud Beytenu dropped one seat in the poll, to 30, followed by Labor going from 15 to 19.

Yesh Atid would drop from 19 to 12 seats, Meretz would gain five seats
for a total of 11, Shas would go down to seven, and United Torah Judaism
stayed as-is with seven. Hatnua, Hadash and Balad each got four seats,
followed by the United Arab List- Ta’al at three and Kadima staying at
its current two.

This article has a lot of references to Likud ministers criticizing Netanyahu on the same grounds as Bennett did, but the truth is that with the notable exception of Moshe Feiglin, criticism of Netanyahu within his own party has been subdued. There's a lesson here for those Likud MK's - who comprise a majority of the Knesset faction - who are not happy with where Netanyahu is trying to take the country with the 'peace process.' Speak up and you will be rewarded.

Kerry to go over government's head without going over government's head?

US Secretary of State John FN Kerry is 'mulling' speaking directly to the 'Israeli people' (not God forbid the Jews) in a bid to convince us that we should support 'concessions' to the 'Palestinians.' Kerry claims he does not want to go over Prime Minister Netanyahu's head, but....

Kerry is mulling the option of delivering a speech directly to the
Israeli public which would be similar to a "state of the union" address.
The secretary has instructed officials in the American embassy to begin
examining the logistical and practical aspects of a Kerry speech.

The idea of a speech is being examined in concert with Israeli
officials, for the Americans have made it clear that they have no
intention of "going over the head" of the government in Jerusalem.
Instead, the goal of the speech would be to help Netanyahu gain more
support from the Israeli public as the secretary puts the finishing
touches on the framework agreement that is due to serve as the basis for
further negotiations between Israel and the PA.

If Kerry does go forward with the speech, it would be along the lines of
remarks he delivered to the Saban Forum this past December. Many in
attendance at the event said that the secretary of state's remarks were
akin to "an almost religious sermon." Kerry is likely to emphasize to
the Israeli public the cost of refusing to move forward in the peace
process and the destructive repercussions that would befall Israel in
the event that talks with Ramallah collapse.

In other words, if we don't 'move ahead,' he will try to convince us that the United States (where almost as few people - as a percentage - support this 'process' as is the case here) is going to rain fire and brimstone on us from the sky. He will try to convince us that the Europeans - who are threatening us with sanctions at his behest - will impose sanctions on us at his behest if we don't 'move ahead.' For this we should agree to commit suicide?

And of course he won't give any such speech to the 'Palestinians.' Their 'leadership' wouldn't allow it and they don't have to make any concessions anyway.

Then there's this amusing tidbit:

Kerry is now trying to create linkage between a Palestinian demand that
east Jerusalem be mentioned as the future capital of Palestine and
Israel's demand for Palestinian recognition of it as a Jewish state. He
is hard at work in trying to lobby Arab governments to apply pressure on
PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who has suddenly got a case of cold feet
and is hesitating.

This is where the absence of Hosni Mubarak is most felt. It was Mubarak
who would intervene on behalf of Washington in moments like these. Right
now, there is no responsible adult in Egypt who can avail himself to
apply diplomatic pressure on the Palestinian Authority. That is a shame.

And who is the one who cut Mubarak loose, leading to his downfall, in the first place? Who was the first 'world leader' to call on Mubarak to resign?

It's time to show John Kerry the door, and suffer the consequences, if any. The sky is not falling.

US Secretary of State John Kerry is not a fair mediator in peace
talks because he has "anti-Israel roots," MK Motti Yogev (Bayit Yehudi)
said Thursday.

"Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is acting under
Kerry's obsessive pressure, which may have anti-Semitic undertones,"
Yogev told Israel Radio. "Kerry is not here to reach a compromise. He
wants to decrease the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel and create a
Palestinian state."

According to Yogev, most senior Likud officials agree with him.

The
Bayit Yehudi MK also pointed out that Kerry ate hummus with Syrian
President Bashar Assad in the past and called him a good friend.

At the same time, Yogev said that the US is a "strategic anchor" and is important to Israeli security.

Thousands pray against 'Kerry decrees' at Western Wall

On a gorgeous January afternoon, thousands of people came out to the Western Wall to pray against the 'Kerry decrees.'

A massive gathering brought thousands together at the Kotel (Western
Wall) Thursday night, in prayers beseeching G-d to "cancel the decrees"
of US Secretary of State John Kerry, whose peace plans would create an Arab capital in Jerusalem.

The prayer rally, which was held under the title "prayer for the
redemption of the people of Israel and their portion," was attended by
Jewish Home coalition members including Housing and Construction
Minister Uri Ariel, Deputy Religious Minister Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan, MK
Orit Struk and MK Moti Yogev.

Rabbi Chaim Druckman, head of the Bnei Akiva yeshivas, Chief Rabbi of Kiryat Arba Rabbi Dov Lior and Chief Rabbi of Tzfat Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu led
the prayers, asking G-d to "give strength, courage, truth and faith to
our leaders. Give them fear and great awe of You, that they will fear
greatly to harm our holy land."

Ariel commented that "thousands of people came to prayer for the
people of Israel, to strengthen the government and the one who stands at
its head, that he may be able to stand firm against the different
pressures coming from the other side of the ocean," reports Mako.

Scarlett Johansson chooses SodaStream over Oxfam

Johansson stepped down after the charity had expressed its disapproval of the actress's new role as spokesperson for SodaStream.

"Oxfam
has accepted Scarlett Johansson’s decision to step down after eight
years as a Global Ambassador and we are grateful for her many
contributions," a statement on the Oxfam International website said.

"While
Oxfam respects the independence of our ambassadors, Ms Johansson’s role
promoting the company SodaStream is incompatible with her role as an
Oxfam Global Ambassador."

Johansson responded to pressure from Oxfam in a statement released to The Huffington Post on Sunday.

“While
I never intended on being the face of any social or political movement,
distinction, separation or stance as part of my affiliation with
SodaStream, given the amount of noise surrounding that decision, I’d
like to clear the air,” she said.

”I remain a supporter of
economic cooperation and social interaction between a democratic Israel
and Palestine. SodaStream is a company that is not only committed to the
environment but to building a bridge to peace between Israel and
Palestine, supporting neighbors working alongside each other, receiving
equal pay, equal benefits and equal rights. That is what is happening in
their Ma’aleh Adumim factory every working day.”

Oxfam has previously stated its staunch opposition to all trade with
Israeli settlements, which it considers illegal under international law.

Now, if only all those Jews who claim that they support Israel would stop donating money to Oxfam.....

Anat Kam is suing Israeli newspaper Haaretz for 2.6 million shekel on charges of leaking her identity through the IDF documents she submitted to journalist Uri Blau.

Kam was released earlier this week,
after serving just two thirds of her prison sentence for espionage. Kam
was convicted of stealing the documents during the period of 2005-2007,
when she served in the IDF as a secretary in the IDF's Central Command
headquarters. She copied thousands of sensitive documents to a
disk-on-key (USB drive) which she proceeded to hand over to reporter Uri
Blau of the left-wing Haaretz.

Blau published some of the information in the documents, but he
claimed that the information he used was not classified or damaging to
the country's security.

Kam was sentenced to four and a half years in prison for her theft. The sentence was later reduced by one year, after an appeal by Kam's lawyers that the sentence was unnecessarily harsh.

Now, she and lawyer Ilan Bombach are suing the daily for revealing
her identity - after it was promised to her that her safety would not be
compromised and her identity would be kept secret throughout the media
leak.

I would say that lawsuit ought to be thrown out as against public policy, but hey... this is Israel.

Bennett kinda sorta apologizes

"In recent days there has been a lot of discussion about the idea of
the Palestinian Authority (PA) retaining sovereignty over Jewish
communities in Judea and Samaria, and certain people from the Prime
Minister's Office (PMO) have tried to turn an existential conversation
into personal attacks [on the PM] that were never there," Bennett stated
to the press.

Bennett formally apologized to the Prime Minister, stating, "if the
Prime Minister was hurt [by my remarks] - that was never my intention."

The Minister stressed that he respects Netanyahu's leadership under "not-so-simple conditions."

"I see the Prime Minister and his Cabinet and in the government and I
acknowledge that he is under immense pressure," Bennett stated.

However, Bennett also stated that while he is apologizing for his
remarks, he maintains the right to criticize, saying: "I support the
Prime Minister like I have to and I criticize him like I have to. It is
my obligation."

The apology-of-sorts resembled a similar one issued by Defense
Minister Moshe Ya'alon, after coming under fire for branding US
Secretary of State John Kerry "obsessive and messianic" in his pursuit of a political deal between Israel and the PA. After immense pressure, Ya'alon apologized for any personal offense to Kerry over his comments, but notably did not retract his views.

But the Jewish Home head noted that his criticism had succeeded in
"shooting down" the idea of abandoning Jewish communities in Judea and
Samaria.

The report goes on to say that tensions between Netanyahu and Bennett were stoked by a 'senior aide' to Netanyahu who had it in for Bennett. I didn't know that Sara Netanyahu was billing herself a 'senior aide.' Maybe she's learning from Mooch who went along on one of President Obama's Africa trips by calling herself and her daughters senior aides.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Peres to live in 'Palestine'?

In response, Peres opined Wednesday morning at the Institute
for National Security Studies (INSS) that Jews would be "safe" living
under PA rule.

"What's this fear that's struck us suddenly? They'll kill Jews?
Today?" commented the doubtful Peres. "The fear should have been in 1948
when we didn't have a cannon, tank or plane against seven armies."

Despite Peres's appraisal that having a cannon means no Jews will be
killed, Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) figures note that terrorist attacks skyrocketed in 2013, jumping to 1,271 from 578 the year prior. Of those attacks, 1,042 took place in Judea and 229 took place in Samaria, the areas Peres claims can be abandoned safely.

Ironically, the same day that Peres opined "today they won't kill Jews," an Arab terrorist opened fire on an IDF guard post next to the Samaria community of Ateret, which lies near Ramallah. Soldiers returned fire, eliminating the terrorist.

Peres steadfastly supports the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the country, even as the PA refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

"If we want to be a Jewish people we need a Jewish state, and all other reasoning has to bend to that need," said Peres Tuesday.

In the past Peres has said the PA recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is "unnecessary."

Peres should be sent to live among the 'Palestinians' to see if they really will murder Jews.

It's instructive that many 'Palestinians' would rather live under Israel than under the 'Palestinians.'

Netanyahu could pull a Sharon and break away from the Likud... at a price

If he wants to form a new party to back a 'peace agreement' with the 'Palestinians,' a new poll indicates that Prime Minister Netanyahu, like former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, could do just that. But his new party would be hard-pressed to form a governing coalition, and most of his support would be coming from the Left.

The scenario poll question was phrased thus: "if the Likud prevents
Netanyahu from reaching an agreement that involves giving up territory
and elections were tomorrow – whom would you vote for?"

The poll predicted that 18 seats would go to Netanyahu's new party,
making it the Knesset's largest. Likud would drop from 20 to 17,
followed by Labor and Jewish Home at 16 each. Far-left Meretz would
shoot up from 6 to 11 seats.

Analyst Jeremy Saltan (aka Knesset Jeremy) spoke to Arutz Sheva to
make sense of all the figures, noting that the most surprising aspect
of the poll is that Netanyahu's seats would mostly come from voters who
currently support parties other than Likud. About 46% of those seats
would come from current Yisrael Beytenu supporters, and most of the rest
would come from center-left parties.

Finance Minister Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid party would fall hard,
dropping from 19 to 10 seats. Similarly, Yisrael Beytenu and Shas both
would drop from 11 to 5. Hatnua would drop to 4 seats and Kadima would
not make it in.

"In my opinion, 18 seats is not strong enough for Netanyahu to break
off from Likud," assessed Saltan. "Even if it would be the biggest
party, the numbers don't merit a breakaway."

Saltan also has some more warnings for Netanyahu.

Saltan warns that one must be cautious in interpreting scenario
polls, as other factors - such as which MKs would follow Netanyahu into a
new party, and which MK would take over the Likud - could highly
influence the outcome.

The analyst notes that prior to Sharon's breakaway from Likud, voters
didn't foresee that Kadima would be a mix-match of "refugee MKs" from
various parties.

In response to the question of what Netanyahu should do if the Likud
opposes a peace deal, 51% said he should accept the Likud's decision,
while only 25% responded that he should create a new party.

Saltan remarks that this response may show that while the poll
indicates Netanyahu would retain the largest party, this doesn't mean
the majority of the Israeli public supports him breaking off to push
through land withdrawals.

Feiglin for Likud leader anyone? That would probably drain enough votes from Jewish Home to make Likud the largest party....

The
“Kerry Plan,” likely to be unveiled soon, is expected to call for an
end to the conflict and all claims, following a phased Israeli
withdrawal from the West Bank (based on the 1967 lines), with
unprecedented security arrangements in the strategic Jordan Valley. The
Israeli withdrawal will not include certain settlement blocs, but Israel
will compensate the Palestinians for them with Israeli territory. It
will call for the Palestinians to have a capital in Arab East Jerusalem
and for Palestinians to recognize Israel as the nation state of the
Jewish people. It will not include any right of return for Palestinian
refugees into Israel proper.

Kerry
expects and hopes that both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel
and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will declare that despite their
reservations about one or another element in the U.S. framework, they
will use it as the basis of further negotiations.

For this we're negotiating? This sounds remarkably like 'what everyone knows' the solution is supposed to be, and if we've proven nothing else going back to the Clinton parameters from the end of 2000, it's that everyone doesn't know.

From there, Friedman veers off into Fantasyland.

This
is where things will get interesting. U.S. and Israeli officials in
close contact with Netanyahu describe him as torn, clearly understanding
that some kind of two-state solution is necessary for Israel’s
integrity as a Jewish democratic state, with the healthy ties to Europe
and the West that are vital for Israel’s economy. But he remains deeply
skeptical about Palestinian intentions — or as Netanyahu said here
Tuesday: “I do not want a binational state. But we also don’t want
another state that will start attacking us.” His political base, though,
which he nurtured, does not want Netanyahu making a U-turn.

Which
is why — although Netanyahu has started to prepare the ground here for
the U.S. plan — if he proceeds on its basis, even with reservations, his
coalition will likely collapse. He will lose a major part of his own
Likud Party and all his other right-wing allies. In short, for Netanyahu
to move forward, he will have to build a new political base around
centrist parties. To do that, Netanyahu would have to become, to some
degree, a new leader — overcoming his own innate ambivalence about any
deal with the Palestinians to become Israel’s most vocal and
enthusiastic salesman for a two-state deal, otherwise it would never
pass.

Well, yeah, the coalition would fall apart. But Netanyahu is not going to make that U-turn, because at this point, if he does, he will have no base in the Likud. And while Netanyahu saying no (which he will at least hopefully be smart enough to hold off doing until the 'Palestinians' inevitably say no - something that Friedman ignores) may precipitate Yesh Atid leaving the coalition, Netanyahu's alternative is to run behind Yair Lapid as Yesh Atid's number 2... and that's not going to happen.

Most Israelis (aside from those who never wanted a deal with the 'Palestinians' in the first place) would answer yes to all of these questions posed by Friedman.

In
essence what Kerry is daring to test is a question everyone has wanted
to avoid: Is the situation between Israelis and Palestinians at five
minutes to midnight or five minutes after midnight, or even 1 a.m. (beyond diplomacy)?

That
is, has Israel become so much more powerful than its neighbors that a
symmetrical negotiation is impossible, especially when the Palestinians
do not seem willing or able to mount another intifada that might force
Israel to withdraw? Has the neighborhood around Israel become so much
more unstable that any Israeli withdrawal from anywhere is unthinkable?
Has the number of Israeli Jews now living in East Jerusalem and the West
Bank become so much larger — more than 540,000 — that they are
immovable? And has the Palestinian rhetoric on the right of return
become so deeply embedded in Palestinian politics? So when you add them
all up, it becomes a fantasy to expect any Israeli or Palestinian leader
to have the strength to make the huge concessions needed for a
two-state solution?

Yes, Tom, read the polls here. Most Israelis believe it's beyond diplomacy. Some of us have believed that for the last 20 years (at least).

Friedman writes that if Kery says the conflict cannot be resolved, Israel will make a 'unilateral withdrawal.' The United States is far more likely to withdraw from Louisiana in such an instance than Israel is to withdraw from Judea and Samaria. It won't happen.

Strip-searched on the Temple Mount

Three Jews were arrested and strip-searched on the Temple Mount on Tuesday, two for carrying Israeli flags onto the site, and one who was filming the events. A fourth Jew was thrown off the Mount for having Tefillin on under his shirt.

The incident began as dozens of Jews who went to the Temple Mount
Tuesday morning were ordered by an officer to enter his office one by
one, and were there ordered to undress to make sure they weren't
"smuggling" Jewish symbols onto the site. Those banned symbols included dried fruit on Tu B'ishvat.

Moti Gabai, the officer tasked with the gate to the Temple Mount,
told Jewish visitors he was instructed to prevent all Jewish or Israeli
symbols from being brought onto the site. Temple Mount Deputy Commander
Daniel Sarga oversaw the scandalous strip searches personally, according
to reports.

Two of the Jews were found to be in possession of a banned object - the flag of Israel.
The two young Jews were immediately arrested by police. A third who
was filming the events at the entrance and on the Temple Mount was
reportedly hit by an officer, and arrested as well as he continued to
film.

...

A fourth Jew that was wearing tefillin (phylacteries) under his
shirtsleeves was expelled from the site by officers, and forbidden from
entering.

In response, sources in Netanyahu's office said "no one will teach
Netanyahu what the love of the land of Israel is," and further called
Bennett's conduct "impudent." They say his behavior and "irresponsible
style won't pass in silence. This behavior of Bennett's harms the
interests of the settlements."

The sources threatened that "if (Bennett) won't apologize," he risks
the dissolution of the current coalition government. "Netanyahu has
enough alternatives. A government without Bennett will continue to
concern itself with the security of Israeli citizens just like" the
former government.

Knesset Council Chairman MK Tzachi Hanegbi (Likud Beytenu) joined the
barrage against Bennett, suggesting that if "Bennett is unable to lie
to himself, and can't give the prime minister backing, he should retire
from his position."

Bennett's party colleague Housing and Construction Minister Uri Ariel,
who is generally very understated, acknowledged that that there was
currently a political "crisis."

Ariel said that the substantive disagreements that exist between Bennett
and his party and Netanyahu do not have to become personal. "If
someone was insulted, I think this is not good, and if it was me I would
apologize."

Ariel said that he was working on the issue and encouraging the sides to
talk. "Talk generally is good for both sides," he said. He expressed
regret that this disagreement was taking place via the microphones.

If I were Bennett, I would be doing two things right now:

1. Making sure that if I leave the government, my entire party goes with me, so that Netanyahu is left with a 54-member (less than a majority) coalition.

Currently, JPost's Lahav Harkov is tweeting that Bennett's party is standing by him.

2. Making sure that if Netanyahu tries to bring in Labor (probably the only option that is outside the coalition right now), it will precipitate enough of a split in the Likud to leave Netanyahu without a majority.

When the polls said on Tuesday that the Likud would get 46 seats if Knesset elections were held today, that was an expression of support for the Right and not for Netanyahu, and most of the people waiting in the wing from the Likud are Feiglin's people and not Netanyahu's. Netanyahu definitely does not have a clear advantage here.

You will note that I did not even discuss the possibility of Yair Lapid sticking to his deal and pulling Yesh Atid out of the government if Bennett pulls out. That won't happen.

To the question, “Do you think that if a Palestinian Arab state were
established, it would live peacefully with Israel or would it be hostile to
Israel and support terrorism?,” 58% of Americans reply that a future
Palestinian state would be hostile and support terrorism, whereas only 17%
think it would live in peace with Israel.

To the question, “Iran continues to call for Israel’s destruction and calls
America the Great Satan. Do you believe that President Obama has done all he
can to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons?,” a majority of 51% of
Americans believe that President Obama has not done all he can to prevent
Iran developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to a mere 28% who believe that
he has (almost a 2 ––1 ratio).

To the question, “Should the United States pass stronger sanctions against
Iran or should they weaken sanctions in order to convince Iran to stop
developing nuclear weapons?,” a large majority of 59% of Americans reply
that the U.S. should impose stronger sanctions, as opposed to a mere 17% who
believe the U.S. should weaken sanctions on Iran (almost a 3.5 –– 1 ratio).

To the question, “Do you believe that Israeli Jews should have the right to
live in settlements in the West Bank, in part to self-defend Israel’s
borders, or should only Palestinian Arabs have the right to live there?,”
47% of Americans believe that Israeli Jews should have the right to live
there, whereas only 14% of Americans believe only Palestinian Arabs should
have the right to live there (over a 3 –– 1 ratio).

To the question, “Do you support President Obama’s plan to give the
Palestinian Authority $440 in American taxpayer dollars in financial aid?,”
an overwhelming majority of 72% Americans oppose President Obama’s planned
funding to the Palestinian Authority, as opposed to a mere 15% who are in
favor of it (almost a 5 –– 1 ratio).

To the question, “Do you believe that Jerusalem should remain the undivided
capital of Israel?,” a clear majority of 55% of Americans reply that
Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel, as opposed to a
mere 13% who believe it should not (over a 4 –– 1 ratio).

To the question, “As part of the current negotiations, should the
Palestinian Authority publicly recognize that Israel is the sovereign state
of the Jewish people?,” a large majority 63% of Americans believe that the
PA should, whereas only 11% believe it should not (almost a 6 –– 1 ratio).

To the question, “Do you believe that President Obama is a close and
reliable friend of Israel?,” only 31% of Americans believe that he is a
close and reliable friend, whereas 38% believe that he is not. (This is a
surprising result, given that the U.S. has always been known as Israel’s
closest and most reliable friend).

The numbers for American Jews are probably much more pro-Obama. But the real silver lining in the cloud for Obama is this: He doesn't have to stand for reelection.

The bill— which would trigger new sanctions tools against Iran should
negotiations fail to reach a comprehensive agreement in twelve months
time— has since garnered 59 public cosponsors
in the upper chamber across party lines. The bill also has the
aggressive backing of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the
largest pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

"For the sake of our
national security," Obama said Tuesday night, in his State of the Union
address, "we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed."

The president noted in his speech that negotiations toward a treaty
over Iran's nuclear program, now a decade old, would be difficult and
"may not succeed." In prior remarks, Obama has put the odds of success
in negotiations with Iran at less than 50 percent.

"If Iran’s
leaders do not seize this opportunity, then I will be the first to call
for more sanctions, and stand ready to exercise all options to make sure
Iran does not build a nuclear weapon," Obama continued. "But if Iran’s
leaders do seize the chance, then Iran could take an important step to
rejoin the community of nations, and we will have resolved one of the
leading security challenges of our time without the risks of war."

So it will take 100-0 vote in the Senate like in 2011? Senator Mark Kirk (R-Il) - one of the two main co-sponsors - is ready.

"The American people – Democrats and Republicans alike –
overwhelmingly want Iran held accountable during any negotiations,"
Kirk said in a statement. Polls show that while most Americans don't
prioritize foreign policy matters, they view Iran with deep distrust,
and support more sanctions over less.

"While the president
promises to veto any new Iran sanctions legislation, the Iranians have
already vetoed any dismantlement of their nuclear infrastructure," Kirk
added, calling his bill an "insurance policy" for Congress.

CNN noted that Obama failed to get any of his top 2013 State of the Union
priorities -- a jobs program, gun control and sweeping immigration
reform -- through Congress. He went into this year’s speech with only a
43% job-approval rating.

True. But the sanctions may be all that Congress can do. They cannot force the President to go to war.

Video: Freed 'Palestinian' terrorist describes how he murdered two Jewish students

I guess this is my night for murderers describing their dastardly deeds. If you clicked through the link in the previous post, the article included a blow-by-blow description of the murder of Daniel Pearl HY"D (May God Avenge his blood). This post includes a video of Issa Abd Rabbo, a 'Palestinian' terrorist murderer who was released in order to convince the 'Palestinians' to come to the 'negotiating' table, describing how he murdered two Jewish students in 1984. Abd Rabbo's hand was lifted by 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen on his release from prison, and Abu Mazen described Abd Rabbo as - what else? - a hero.

Mahmoud Abbas and other PA leaders have called all the released terrorist murderers "heroes," on numerous occasions.
Palestinian Media Watch recently reported that released murderer Asrar
Samrin, who was released with Abd Rabbo, told PA TV that none of the
prisoners regret their actions: "There is no Palestinian who did
something for the homeland and his nation who will regret it. We don't
regret what we did and we will not regret what we did."

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Daniel Pearl's final story

The woman who housed Daniel Pearl HY"D (May God Avenge his blood) and his wife in Karachi, Pakistan the night before he was kidnapped goes to Guantanamo to confront Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and learns what actually happened to Daniel Pearl. Long, infuriating and guaranteed to give you nightmares.

“There are those in this country who are
disappointed that there is no partner [for peace] on the Palestinian
side,” Livni, who heads the Israeli negotiating team, with the
Palestinian Authority, said at a conference at the Institute for
National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. “The point is not to expose the
other side’s face, but to reach an agreement with them.”

Hatnua party leader Livni, a dovish member of
Netanyahu’s largely right-wing cabinet, was implying that, rather than
pursue a peace agreement in earnest, some Israeli officials have been
baiting the Palestinians so as to elicit responses that could be
construed as rejectionist.

...

During her
speech on Monday, Livni also directly addressed the Israeli right’s
rejection of Palestinian aspirations to statehood.

“I’ve heard in recent days various sources in
Israel who said that Jews didn’t dream for 2,000 years in order to give
away part of their land,” she said, referring to Jewish Home leader and
Economics Minister Naftali Bennett’s criticism of the Netanyahu
settlers-in-Palestine idea. ”They also didn’t dream of an isolated state
that rules over others. There’s a price for arriving at an agreement,
but the price of not arriving at an agreement is much higher.”

Peace negotiations are “something we need to do because I believe it’s the new vision of Zionism,” Livni said.

I don't think Livni needs to blame Netanyahu for the 'talks' failure in order to save her political career. Given that she survived her total failure at the end of the Second Lebanon War and her failed attempt at Annapolis to give the 'Palestinians' even more than they are being offered now, Livni's continued presence on the political scene is proof positive that the average Israeli voter and the Prime Ministers (who continue to take Livni into their governments) whom they elect have the vision of an ostrich and the memory of an amoeba. Unfortunately, we probably have not seen the last of Livni in government.

Balestine

Oh wow! New poll puts Likud-Beiteinu at 46 Knesset seats

A new poll indicates that the options are on the table in Israel for Binyamin Netanyahu, and not for Barack Hussein Obama or the United States. The poll finds Netanyahu's Likud-Beiteinu party would rise to 46 seats from its current 31 in the 120-member Knesset if new elections were to be held today. The reasons for that rise are popular support for what is seen as Netanyahu's tough stances against the Iranian nuclear program and against the 'Palestinian Authority.'

Regarding Iran, a recent poll shows that Israelis align with Netanyahu in distrusting the current round of Western engagement and talks with Iran, figures that are in line with a November poll finding broad skepticism regarding the then-ongoing Geneva talks.

Some 52.5% support Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s
position regarding tensions with the U.S. over Iran. A new survey has
found that the majority of Jewish Israelis believes the government’s
hard-line position regarding the Iranian threat is justified and that if
need be, Israel is capable of mounting a unilateral strike on the
Islamic republic’s nuclear facilities.

More than half of those interviewed — 52.5% — said they supported
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s position against the U.S. over the
Iranian nuclear negotiations. The prime minister’s policy garnered
support from participants across the political spectrum, and in all age
groups and income brackets, with significant support noted especially in
the religious sector (84.4%). Some 57.6% of those defining themselves
as ultra-Orthodox said the supported Netanyahu’s policy on Iran as well.

Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, a recent poll found overwhelming support for maintaining a security presence along the border with Jordan in the context of a final comprehensive agreement. A report published last
week by the Daily Beast disclosed that the Obama administration has
established something of a lobbying presence inside Israel to “prepare
the Israeli public” to make compromises to the Palestinians. The article
specifically outlined efforts by the administration to mobilize support
for an agreement that would exclude an Israeli security presence from
around the Jordanian border.

Ashton forgets to mention Jews on International Holocaust Remembrance Day

The graphic explains it all, but here's Catherine Ashton's statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

“Today the international community remembers the victims of the Holocaust,” the EU’s top diplomat said.
“We honor every one of those brutally murdered in the darkest period of
European history. We also want to pay a special tribute to all those
who acted with courage and sacrifice to protect their fellow citizens
against persecution.”

“On Holocaust Remembrance Day, we must keep alive the memory of this
tragedy. It is an occasion to remind us all of the need to continue
fighting prejudice and racism in our own time. We must remain vigilant
against the dangers of hate speech and redouble our commitment to
prevent any form of intolerance. The respect of human rights and
diversity lies at the heart of what the European Union stands for.”

Astounding. And this woman wants a role in 'peace making' in the Middle East? She should be shown the door.

American Jewish leadership recognizing Pollard injustice?

Is the mainstream American Jewish leadership finally recognizing that an injustice has been and is being done to Jonathan Pollard and that the cause is plain old anti-Semitism? Consider this from Tablet Magazine.

Abraham Foxman of the
Anti-Defamation League said he had come to conclude—after years of
thinking otherwise—that Pollard’s continued imprisonment does imply
prejudice at work:

When the Jonathan Pollard affair surfaced 28 years ago, there were
claims by some that the sentencing of Pollard, life imprisonment, was
tinged with anti-Semitism. We at the Anti-Defamation League took that
charge seriously, made our own investigation, and concluded there was no
basis for such an accusation.

I bring that up now because as the years pass and the world has
changed many times over, and with more and more prominent Americans,
including individuals from the intelligence community, saying “enough
already,” Pollard remains in prison.

Pleas for his parole are raised on a regular basis, but go unheeded.
The whole thing at this late date makes no sense. There surely is no
information that Pollard possesses after all these years that can be
harmful to American interests. The fact that Pollard shared information
with an ally—Israel—was no reason for him not to be punished. But after
this long imprisonment, the fact that it was such a close ally who
received his information should have influenced a positive response when
the subject of parole arose.

I am not one to equate what Pollard did, to betray his country, to
the recent revelations that the United States has been spying on top
Israeli leaders. Here too, however, these revelations add further
context to the absurdity of the ongoing vendetta against this one man.

Yes, I use that word because that’s what it seems like at this point.
If it were only a vendetta against one individual it would be bad
enough. But it has now become one against the American Jewish community.

In effect, the continuing imprisonment of this person long after he
should have been paroled on humanitarian grounds can only be read as an
effort to intimidate American Jews. And, it is an intimidation that can
only be based on an anti-Semitic stereotype about the Jewish community,
one that we have seen confirmed in our public opinion polls over the
years, the belief that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to
their own country, the United States.

In other words, the underlying concept which fuels the ongoing
Pollard incarceration is the notion that he is only the tip of the
iceberg in the community. So Pollard stays in prison as a message to
American Jews: don’t even think about doing what he did.

I come to this conclusion with much sorrow and, as noted, as someone
who resisted efforts early on to connect the Pollard affair to
anti-Semitism. It is harder and harder to do so any longer.

I don't think Foxman could have written that even a year ago. And I don't think he has ever written anything truer. If only his fellow mainstream leaders - who were invited to but did not respond to Tablet's editorial calling for Pollard's release - would follow his lead.

For someone like Livni to have gone public on what are supposed to be
closed-door negotiations, we can assume that her back must really be
against the wall this time. With just three months to go before the
current round of negotiations are due to expire, it seems that everyone,
even the talks’ most enthusiastic supporters, are now preparing for the
fallout from negotiations collapsing. And clearly Livni, too, is
looking for a position from which to weather the storm.

Speaking over the weekend, Livni openly
condemned what she referred to as Abbas’s “unacceptable positions” in
the negotiations. We are told that Abbas is demanding all of east
Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital, including the Old City and its holy
sites, that he has refused to recognize the Jewish state, and in
contradiction to what many believed to be his position in the past,
Abbas is insisting that the millions of descendants of the Palestinian
refugees return, not to a future Palestinian state, but to the very
Jewish state that he refuses to recognize.

None of these demands are that surprising; Abbas knows full well that
these are things that Israel will never be able to concede. But then
Abbas also knows that his own political survival depends on not reaching
an agreement with Israel, just as Livni’s political survival always
depended on these talks yielding some modicum of success.

Clearly Livni is now facing up to seeing what most people saw long
ago. Indeed, a recent poll showed that 87 percent of Israelis do not
expect these negotiations to go anywhere. Even President Obama has said
that he now believes these talks have a less than 50 percent chance of
success, a remarkable statement at this late stage given the way his
administration has spent the past five years strong-arming the two sides
into talks that clearly neither felt particularly enthusiastic about.

Livni has staked her political career on the two-state proposal and a
negotiated settlement. She was a protégée of Ariel Sharon and has
sought to pickup where prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak left
off. Yet, like the two Ehud’s she now finds herself trading
incriminations with the Palestinians as they appear set to walk away
from yet another Israeli offer. This is what always ends up happening.
Now that we’re back to this stage in the cycle once again it would be so
easy, and indeed politically tempting, for her to attempt to lay the
blame on her old rival, Prime Minister Netanyahu, by making the claim
that he set her up with a negotiating position bound to fail. Instead,
Livni has placed the blame where it’s due, with Abbas.

Wilson implies that Livni has an option of blaming Netanyahu. She does not. There are two reasons for that. One is that most Israelis are much closer to Netanyahu's position in these 'negotiations' than they are to Livni's. That was true at the outset, and it's even more true today.

More importantly, Livni cannot claim that Netanyahu set her up, because she clearly set herself up to be involved in these 'negotiations.' Livni ran to join Netanyahu's government before any other party, because she did not want to languish in opposition. And she insisted on being in charge of 'negotiations' out of an arrogant belief that she and only she could carry them to a 'successful' conclusion. Despite repeated protests from other coalition MK's, particularly from the camp of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (who did not become Foreign Minister again until his legal situation was resolved), Livni has remained in charge of the 'negotiations' from the get-go despite being out of tune with the coalition and with most of the rest of the country. If the 'negotiations' had 'worked,' Livni's downfall might have been trying to impose her beliefs on the 87% of Israelis who disagree with them. But since they didn't work, her downfall will be steeper and more inevitable.

Mahmoud Abbas is now entering his tenth year of a four-year presidential
term. He is all but devoid of legitimacy and has a proven track record
of doing everything in his power to avoid negotiations with Israel, and
to avoid agreeing to anything in the event that he is forced to take
part in them. But if Secretary of State John Kerry should have seen this
coming–and he really should have–then all the more so for Livni.

Yes, they should have. But these negotiations are the raison d'etre of both Livni and Kerry. Without them, Livni has no role to play in Israel's foreign policy establishment, and Kerry has no accomplishments on which to base a future Presidential run and/or a place in history.

The other one who should have seen this coming is Barack Hussein Obama. But his blind support for the 'Palestinians' and his selfish desire to have some accomplishment in the Middle East to which he can point blinded him to reality.

In the best case scenario, these 'negotiations' will end in April, and the IDF will be able to quash any reaction from the 'Palestinian street.' In any event, the last thing we should be doing is making more unilateral concessions to prolong the agony.

Abu Mazen's security adviser calls for 'armed resistance'

Former 'Palestinian' intelligence chief Tawfik Tirawai, who is currently 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen's security adviser, has issued a call for 'armed resistance' in light of the fact that the 'Palestinians' are not being offered everything they want in the current 'negotiations.'

"As things stand, we won't
have a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip even 20 years
from now. Therefore, we should consider resuming the path of armed
resistance. Maybe that will bring about change," Tirawi told the
Lebanese news channel Al-Mayadeen.

Tirawi, the PA's former intelligence chief,
stressed that the Palestinian will not agree to the outline currently
promoted by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and warned that both the
Palestinians and Israel should prepare for the security escalation that
is sure to follow.

"All Palestinian factions agree that we must
reject Kerry's plan. We cannot accept any of the principles detailed in
it … We have to work towards an agreement that would include all of the
[Palestinian] factions -- those under the PLO's leadership and those
external to it," he said, referring to Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.

Asked whether resuming violence does not
counter the principles set by Abbas himself following the Second
Intifada, Tirawi noted that the Palestinians "have never forsaken the
path of diplomacy, just like we have never forsaken the path of armed
resistance, which is an inseparable part of how we work."

Fatah, he noted, "does not dismiss any path
that may help us realize the Palestinian vision of having an independent
state with Jerusalem as its capital."

A new violent intifada is probably the inevitable result of the inevitable failure of the current 'negotiations.' But at least John FN Kerry got to spend some time in the limelight.

AIPAC gives cover to Debbie Wasserman Schultz's anti-AIPAC campaign

Are there some Congresscritters who are too big to oppose? That appears to be the case with Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl). Adam Kredo reports that none other than AIPAC itself is giving cover to Dumb Debbie's anti-AIPAC campaign.

AIPAC’s initial letter on the controversy, which circulated two weeks
ago, urged Wasserman Schultz’s constituents to “respectfully ask” that
she clarify her position on the congressional measures and issue a
statement supporting them.

However, on Jan. 24, AIPAC’s Southeastern states director Mark
Kleinman issued a second letter, this one defending Wasserman Schultz.

Some pro-Israel activists in South Florida are not happy about AIPAC
reversing course to defend Wasserman Schultz, who continues to stand in
opposition to the group’s own legislative efforts.

“Friends, I wanted to forward a statement issued by AIPAC national
board member Ike Fisher after the Huffington Post released an inaccurate
article regarding AIPAC and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz,”
Kleinman wrote in the letter sent on AIPAC letterhead, a copy of which
was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

“Thank you and Shabbat Shalom,” Kleinman added before attaching a statement from board member Fisher.

“Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz has a strong record of support for
the U.S.-Israel relationship,” read Fisher’s statement. “She is a good
friend of Israel and a close friend of AIPAC, and we look forward to our
continued work together for many years to come.”

The letter did not state why AIPAC considers the Huffington Post report to be inaccurate.

When asked about the controversy on Twitter, Huffington Post reporter Jennifer Bendery said that no one at AIPAC ever “contacted me with any problems.”

“Sounds like they just need an excuse to flip,” Bendery said on Twitter.

Fisher, by the way, is the guy who told Florida Jews in 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama is a genuine supporter of Israel. A lot he knows....

But the real question is why AIPAC is supporting Wasserman Schultz despite the fact that anyone with their eyes open and a brain in their head can see that her position on Iran sanctions stands in stark opposition to AIPAC's. Kredo has an ominous explanation.

Jewish activists in Washington and South Florida say that AIPAC’s
flip-flop is unusual for an organization that typically exercises great
restraint and discipline.

“This is clearly a problem for them,” said another pro-Israel
activist for has worked with AIPAC. “One of these letters shows their
incompetence; we’re just not sure which one it is.”

Others said that the contradictory letters are a sign of deeper trouble at AIPAC.

“This is only the beginning,” said Steve Rosen, a former top AIPAC
official. “At the center of AIPAC is bipartisanship and the day it
breaks with either of two parties is the day it ceases to exist—and
they’re pretty close to this.”

AIPAC is facing a “terrible dilemma because [Wasserman Schultz] is not going to change her position,” Rosen said.

And you thought that J Street would support the Democrats and AIPAC would end up supporting the Republicans, didn't you?

'Jerusalem is ours, we're coming': Obama's brother joins Hamas

Walid Shoebat presents a slew of photographic evidence that President Obama's brother Malik is a member of Hamas, and that he and the President of the United States are much closer than they are willing to publicly admit. Here are some highlights, but you should definitely check out the evidence (Hat Tip: Bad Blue).

While in Sanaa, Yemein in 2010, President Barack Obama’s brother Malik Obama was at an event billed as the Orphans Development Fund (ODF) Conference. It’s quite the ironic title considering a group photo Malik is in that he has posted to his website.
In the photo, he can be seen wearing a Hamas scarf (keffiyeh) that
bears a well-known Palestinian slogan – ‘Jerusalem is ours – WE ARE
COMING!’ It also includes a map of Palestine that says, ‘From the River
to the Sea!’ In other words, Malik is saying, THERE IS NO ISRAEL.

...

Malik reads and speaks fluent Arabic as do many in his family, like cousin Musa Ismail Obama and uncle Sayyid,
who’ve been to at least one prominent Wahhabist university in Saudi
Arabia. Barack recited the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer
with a ‘first-rate accent’ according to the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof.

The keffiyeh (or scarf) doesn’t just say, ‘Al Aqsa is ours and is not
their temple’. It also says ‘Innana Qadimun’, which translates to mean
‘We are marching forward’. This famous battle command which is a
reference to the prophecy that some day the Muslim world will march on
Jerusalem and then the trees and stones will cry out, ‘here is a Jew
hiding behind me… come O Muslim, come and kill him’.

...

Those who see this as a matter of guilt by association run into some
major problems. President Barack Obama and Malik are much closer than is
being admitted publicly. In an interview published in GQ Magazine last July, Malik took offense at the characterization of him and the president as being merely ‘half’ brothers:

“Everyone’s referring to us as half, quarter,…step,
things like that,” he says, displeased even by the taste of those words.
“I think that’s like weights and measures. This didn’t even occur to us
until he became president, until he gained prominence. And now we’re
sort of like celebrities.

“But this is a streak of ignorance,” he adds. “Here
in Africa we don’t think of each other as ‘half’ this or that. In an
extended family, someone is your brother even if he is just in your
clan. So I…am Obama.”

A photo of Malik as best man at Barack’s wedding tends to back up the claim:

Nevertheless,
the commercial is likely to be aired, because Birnbaum said he had
little choice but to cut the offending line. "If I could get my money
back, I'd be happy to be out of that deal," he added.

"What are
they afraid of?" asked Birnbaum. "Which advertiser in America doesn't
mention a competitor? This is the kind of stuff that happens in China.
I'm disappointed as an American."

The two soft-drink giants,
longtime spenders on Super Bowl ads, are back in the game this year, and
Pepsi also is sponsoring the halftime show.

Fox executives
declined to comment. So did executives from PepsiCo. Coca-Cola
spokeswoman Lauren Thompson said: "I can confirm we did not pressure
Fox. Other than that, we don't comment on our competitors' efforts."

Israel's former head of Military Intelligence... insane?

Insanity, as I'm sure you all know, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Israel withdrew unilaterally from Lebanon in 2000, and now we have 60,000 or more rockets pointing at us courtesy of Hezbullah. Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in 2005 (and expelled the Jewish population), and the strip was taken over by Hamas and is now a base for shooting rockets at Israel. Now, former Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin is advocating doing the same thing again in Judea and Samaria. Insane? You bet 'ya.

With the chances of success in the Israeli-Palestinian talks "very
small," and as the Palestinians have a detailed Plan B for when the
talks fail, Israel needs to be proactive and consider a "coordinated
unilateral" withdrawal to lines it deems suitable, Amos Yadlin said
Monday.

Yadlin, a former chief of Military Intelligence who today
heads the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said that
although unilateralism got a "bad name" in Israel because of the 2005
withdrawal from Gaza and the 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon, "it is not
necessarily a bad strategy" if done right.

Yadlin, speaking at a briefing marking his think tank's publication
of its 2013-2014 Strategic Survey for Israel, and a day prior to the
organization's annual two-day international conference, said that a
unilateral step in the West Bank would not be Israel's first option, and
that it would prefer an agreement. But if that is not possible, Israel
should consider withdrawing to the security barrier, leaving some 15
percent of the West Bank – including the Jordan Valley – in its hands.

He
said that one of the lessons learned from the Gaza withdrawal was that
it was a mistake to withdraw from 100 percent of the territory, because
then there is no incentive for the other side to continue to negotiate.

Why would we unilaterally give up territory that everyone agrees has strategic value? What would we accomplish by doing this aside from worsening our position and endangering our lives? How would people in the Jordan Valley get back and forth to any other part of the country if the IDF is not there to protect them? And if we give the 'Palestinians' 85% of the territory for free, why wouldn't they just wait for the rest?

London Holocaust Day speaker admires Hitler, hates Jews

I'd like you all to meet Hassan Farooq. Farooq was a Holocaust Day speaker in London in 2013.

Let's go to the videotape.

But a British organization called Stand for Peace has done an investigation into Mr. Farouq and has found some very disturbing things.

Hassan Farooq is a a “senior member” of the Newham Dawah Team, an East
London-based organisation which attempts to spread the message of
Islam. Newham Dawah Team is part of the Islamic Education and Research
Academy (iERA) Network, and its officials regularly liaise with iERA officials such as Abdurraheem Green. The iERA is an extremist Salafi group, some of whose officials have been banned from the UK. Abdurraheem Green talks of a Jewish “stench” and advocates the killing of homosexuals.

About Me

I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com